N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ENJIN LIANG,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71319 Age n c y No. A205-172-929 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd HAR POOL, ** Distric t Judge . W e njin Lia

ng, a native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED APR 18 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble M . Dougla s Ha

rpool, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M i ssouri, sitting by de signa tion.W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n. Se mbiring v . Gonzale s , 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th C ir. 2007). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and. A we ak pre sum

ption of e ffe c tive de live ry a pplie s to se rvic e of notic e s se nt by re gula r m a il. Se e id. at 986–87 (“ W h e re a pe titione r a c tua lly

initia te s a proc e e ding to obta

in a be ne fit . . . a

nd ha s no m otive to a

v oid the he aring, a

sworn a ffidav it from

[pe titione r] tha

t ne ithe r [he ] nor a

re sponsiblepa

rty re siding a

t his a ddre s s re c e ive d the notic e should ordina rily be suffic ie nt to re b ut the pre sum ption of [re gula r m a il] de live ry .” (c ita

tion omitte d )). He re , Lia

ng pre se nte d a

sworn a ffidav it tha

t he did not re c e ive any notic e s by m a il a fte r initia ting proc e e dings by filing a n a sy l um a pplic a tion. Se e id. at 988 (“ [Filing a n] a s y lum a p plic a tion fa lls dire c tly within [the ] de sc ription of ‘ initia t[ing] a proc e e ding to obta

in a be ne fit.’ ” (c ita tion omitte d)). W e thus gra nt the pe tition for re v ie w a nd re m and to thea ge nc y with instruc tions to re c onside r, in light of Lia ng’ s sworn a ffidavit, its finding tha t Lia n g m ay be c ha

rge d with c o n struc tive re c e ipt of the Notic e to Appe ar date d April 23, 2012. W e do not c onside r Lia

ng’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the gove rnm e n t viola

te d 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a )(1)(F) byfa i ling to provide him with writte n notic e of the re q u ire m e nt that he provide a

m a iling a ddre ss. W e find tha t Lia ng a de quate ly

pre se rve d this 2argum e nt in his ple a d ings be low but tha t ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA a ddre sse d this argum e nt. W

he re the a ge nc y

la c ke d “ the opportunity

to a ddre s s the m a tte r in the first insta nc e in light of its own e

xpe rtise ,” we re m and the m a tte r. IN S v . Orlando Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16–17 (2002). Lia n g is fre e to ra ise this a

rgum e nt on re m and. Like wise , we do not re vie w the IJ’ s finding tha t Lia ng wa s a re m ova ble a lie n. The a d

m inistra tive re c ord doe s not indic a te that Lia n g c ha lle nge d the m e rits of his re m ova

bility be low. Our re vie w is limite d to the a dm i nistra tive re c ord unde rly ing the B IA’ s de c ision, Barrie ntos v . Ly n c h , 829 F.3d 1064, 1067 n.1 (9th C ir. 2016), a

nd we thus c annot re a c h this a rgum e nt. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D . 1

1 The gove rnm e nt’ s m otion to re m a n d without oral a

rgum e nt, file d De c e m b e r 6, 2018, is D E NIE D a s m oot. 3